Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 115 / Wednesday, June 15, 2016 / Proposed Rules 38999 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, this proposed rule, 

regarding the Philadelphia RACT 

requirements under the 1997 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS, does not have tribal 

implications as specified by Executive 

Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 

2000), because the SIP is not approved 

to apply in Indian country located in the 

state, and EPA notes that it will not 

impose substantial direct costs on tribal 

governments or preempt tribal law. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Volatile organic 

compounds. 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. 

Dated: June 3, 2016. 

Shawn M. Garvin, 

Regional Administrator, Region III. 

[FR Doc. 2016–14102 Filed 6–14–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R01–OAR–2015–0238, FRL–9947–68- 

Region 1] 

Air Plan Approval; CT; NOX Emission 

Trading Orders as Single Source SIP 

Revisions 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a 

State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

revision submitted by the State of 

Connecticut. This revision continues to 

allow facilities to create and/or use 

emission credits using NOX Emission 

Trading and Agreement Orders (TAOs) 

to comply with the NOX emission limits 

required by Regulations of Connecticut 

State Agencies (RCSA) section 22a–174– 

22 (Control of Nitrogen Oxides). The 

intended effect of this action is to 

propose approval of the individual 

trading orders to allow facilities to 

determine the most cost-effective way to 

comply with the state regulation. This 

action is being taken in accordance with 

the Clean Air Act (CAA). 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before July 15, 2016. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID Number EPA– 

R01–OAR–2015–0238 at http://

www.regulations.gov, or via email to 

Dahl.Donald@epa.gov. For comments 

submitted at Regulations.gov, follow the 

online instructions for submitting 

comments. Once submitted, comments 

cannot be edited or removed from 

Regulations.gov. For either manner of 

submission, the EPA may publish any 

comment received to its public docket. 

Do not submit electronically any 

information you consider to be 

Confidential Business Information (CBI) 

or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Multimedia 

submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be 

accompanied by a written comment. 

The written comment is considered the 

official comment and should include 

discussion of all points you wish to 

make. The EPA will generally not 

consider comments or comment 

contents located outside of the primary 

submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or 

other file sharing system). For 

additional submission methods, please 

contact the person identified in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. 

For the full EPA public comment policy, 

information about CBI or multimedia 

submissions, and general guidance on 

making effective comments, please visit 

http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/

commenting-epa-dockets. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Donald Dahl, Air Permits, Toxics, and 

Indoor Programs Unit, Office of 

Ecosystem Protection, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, EPA 

New England Regional Office, 5 Post 

Office Square, Suite 100, (OEP05–2), 

Boston, MA 02109–3912, phone number 

(617) 918–1657, fax number (617) 918– 

0657, email Dahl.Donald@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document whenever 

‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean 

EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. Background and Purpose. 

II. Analysis of State Submission 

III. Proposed Action 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Background and Purpose 

On November 15, 2011, the 

Connecticut Department of Energy and 

Environmental Protection (CT DEEP) 

submitted a formal revision to its State 

Implementation Plan (SIP). This SIP 

revision consists of eighty-nine sourcespecific Trading Agreement and Orders 

(TAOs) that allow twenty-four 

individual stationary sources of nitrogen 

oxide (NOX) emissions to create and/or 

trade NOX emission credits in order to 

ensure more effective compliance with 

EPA SIP-approved state regulations for 

reducing NOX emissions. We previously 

approved source-specific TAOs of the 

same kind issued by CT DEEP under 

this program for these same sources on 

September 28, 1999 (64 FR 52233), 

March 23, 2001 (66 FR 16135), and 

September 9, 2013 (78 FR 54962). The 

SIP submittal also includes Consent 

Order 8029A issued to Hamilton 

Sundstrand which addresses Volatile 

Organic Compound (VOC) emissions. 

In our September 9, 2013 approval, 

EPA acted on most of the TAOs 

contained in CT DEEP’s July 1, 2004 SIP 

revision submission to EPA. At that 

time, EPA did not act on (1) TAO 8021 

issued to Pfizer; (2) TAO 8246 issued to 

Sikorsky Aircraft; (3) TAO 8110A issued 

to Yale University; and (4) Consent 

Order 7019A issued to Hamilton 

Sundstrand Corporation. On May 29, 

2015, CT DEEP revised its July 1, 2004 

SIP revision submittal to EPA by 

modifying TAO 8110A. Today we are 

acting on the modified version of TAO 

8110A. EPA will take action on TAOs 

8246 and 8021 at a future date. Lastly, 

on April 22, 2014 the CT DEEP 

withdrew Consent Order 7019A from 

the 2004 SIP submittal. 

The CAA requires states to develop 

Reasonably Available Control 

Technology (RACT) regulations for all 

major stationary sources of NOX in areas 

which have been classified as 

‘‘moderate,’’ ‘‘serious,’’ ‘‘severe,’’ and 

‘‘extreme’’ as well as in all areas of the 

Ozone Transport Region (OTR). EPA has 

defined RACT as the lowest emission 

limitation that a particular source is 

capable of meeting by the application of 

control technology that is reasonably 

available considering technological and 

economic feasibility (44 FR 53762; 

September 17, 1979). This requirement 

is established by sections 182(b)(2), 

182(f), and 184(b) of the CAA. 

Connecticut, as part of the OTR as 

well as being designated nonattainment 

for ozone, established NOX emission 

limits for existing major sources in order 

to meet the RACT requirement. The 

NOX emission limits are codified in 

Regulations of Connecticut State 

Agencies (RCSA) section 22a–174–22 

(Control of Nitrogen Oxides). These 

state regulations were last approved by 

EPA into the Connecticut SIP on 

October 6, 1997. (See 62 FR 52016). 

As stated above, when determining 

what constitutes RACT for a source, a 

state and EPA need to consider both 

technology and economic feasibility. 

For example, it is technically possible 

for a source to install pollution control 

devices in series to further reduce 

emissions. However, if a state and EPA 


ehiers on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
39000 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 115 / Wednesday, June 15, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

1The NOX emission credits created pursuant to 

RSCA 22a–174–38(d) are referred to as emission 

reduction credits. 

2RSCA 22a–174–38(d)(1) also allows a municipal 

waste combustor that commenced construction 

prior to December 20, 1989 to use emission credits 

created under RSCA 22a–174–38 to comply with 

the NOX emission limits contained in RSCA 22a– 

174–38(c)(8). 

3Furthermore, CT DEEP is currently working 

with a RACT stakeholder workgroup on draft 

regulations. See www.ct.gov/deep/cwp/

view.asp?a=2684&q=546804&deepNav_GID=1619. 

determined that such an installation 

would be economically infeasible in 

relation to the additional emissions 

reductions achieved, then the RACT 

emission limit under Connecticut’s 

regulations could legitimately be 

established at a higher rate than would 

be achieved by installing control 

devices in series. 

RCSA 22a–174–22 establishes NOX

emission limits for several types of 

fossil-fuel firing emission units. RCSA 

22a–174–38 establishes NOX emission 

limits for municipal waste combustors. 

Since RACT is determined on a sourceby-source basis, a fossil-fuel firing 

source may under Connecticut’s 

regulations request a higher emission 

limit by making a demonstration to the 

CT DEEP that it is either technologically 

or economically infeasible, or both, to 

meet the NOX RACT limit in RCSA 22a– 

174–22. CT DEEP’s use of the NOX

TAOs has rendered the need for higher 

source-specific emission rates, based on 

demonstrations of technological and/or 

economic feasibility, less frequent, thus 

having the effect of reducing overall 

NOX emissions to a greater degree than 

would be the case without the TAO 

trading mechanism. For example, in its 

RACT Analysis for the 2008 ozone 

national ambient air quality standard 

(NAAQS) submitted to EPA on July 18, 

2014 (2014 RACT Analysis), CT DEEP 

stated that ‘‘[t]he traditional cost 

effectiveness ($/ton of NOX emitted) 

evaluation of controlling NOX emissions 

from the load-following boilers and 

uncontrolled turbines will not address 

high electric demand day (HEDD) 

emissions because the addition of 

controls on existing units that operate 

infrequently will nearly always result in 

a cost of control that is not reasonable.’’ 

Accordingly, as an alternative to these 

potential single source SIP 

determinations, which can lead to 

higher levels of NOX emissions, 

Connecticut established an emission 

trading program in RCSA 22a–174–22(j) 

for fossil-fuel firing emission units and 

RSCA 22a–174–38(d) for municipal 

waste combustors. These two SIPapproved regulations allow a source to 

participate in Connecticut’s NOX

emission trading program using two 

different mechanisms. RSCA 22a–174– 

22(j) requires a source that wants to 

participate in the program to enter into 

a TAO with the CT DEEP. RSCA 22a– 

174–38(d) does not require a municipal 

waste combustor (MWC) to enter into a 

TAO and instead contains specific 

requirements that an MWC must meet in 

order to create a NOX emission 

reduction credit that can be used in 

Connecticut’s trading program. These 

emission trading programs provide 

incentives for some facilities subject to 

the NOX emission limits in either RSCA 

22a–174–22 or RSCA 22a–174–38 to 

reduce their NOX emissions beyond 

what is required to meet RACT by 

allowing them to create discrete 

emission reduction credits (DERCs).1

The DERCs may then be purchased by 

other sources which otherwise may 

have needed a higher source-specific 

NOX emission limit due to technological 

and/or economic infeasibility. DERCs 

are created when a facility installs and 

operates a control device which reduces 

emissions beyond what is required to 

meet the NOX emission limitations in 

RSCA 22a–174–22 or in RSCA 22a–174– 

38(d). Once a DERC is created, it can 

then be sold to another source that is 

unable to meet the NOX limit in RSCA 

22a–174–22 .2 The incentive to over 

control leads to a greater NOX emission 

reduction than the reduction that would 

have occurred if Connecticut had to 

establish a higher NOX emission limit 

for those sources which demonstrated 

that they would be unable to meet the 

NOX limits in RSCA 22a–174–22 due to 

cost or technological infeasibility, or 

both. 

At the time Connecticut instituted the 

NOX emission trading program in 1995, 

the sources generating NOX emission 

credits in Connecticut were reducing 

their emissions to levels below those 

required by Connecticut’s RACT 

regulations. Since that time, in more 

recent years, other states have 

established NOX RACT emission limits 

for emission units similar to those in 

Connecticut, at levels lower than the 

emission limits in RSCA 22a–174–22 

which are currently approved in the 

Connecticut SIP as meeting RACT for 

the 1997 ozone standard. CT DEEP is 

now required by the CAA to recertify 

that its regulations meet RACT for the 

2008 ozone standard. During this 

recertification process, CT DEEP 

recognized the fact the NOX emission 

limits contained in RSCA 22a–174–22 

may not be stringent enough for the 

2008 ozone standard by stating in its 

2014 RACT Analysis that ‘‘[w]hile the 

combination of emissions limits and 

trading initially led (sic) to significant 

system-wide emission reductions 

throughout Connecticut in 1995, the 

efforts to ‘‘over-control’’ to generate 

credits are now merely RACT in many 

other states. DEEP must therefore 

consider elimination of the single 

source emissions trading program, as 

well as more stringent emission limits, 

to meet current RACT levels and realize 

additional reductions in Connecticut 

emissions.’’ In other words, CT DEEP’s 

NOX emission trading program, as 

presently structured in RSCA 22a–174– 

22, may no longer be viable in the future 

to meet today’s standards for RACT, as 

emission limits in RSCA 22a–174–22 

may need to be revised in order for CT 

DEEP to demonstrate attainment with 

the 2008 ozone standard. In fact, CT 

DEEP’s July 1, 2014 RACT submittal 

states, ‘‘DEEP commits to perform 

further evaluation of Connecticut’s 

municipal waste combustor and fuelburning source NOX requirements and 

to seek any regulatory revisions 

necessary to revise the control 

requirements to a RACT level for the 

2008 ozone NAAQS,’’ and also states, 

‘‘DEEP commits to begin a review of 

NOX emissions and emissions controls 

for the sources now subject to RCSA 

section 22a–174–22 with the goal of 

developing changes to RCSA section 

22a–174–22 sufficient to satisfy RACT 

under the 2008 ozone NAAQS.’’ 3

Therefore, EPA is not deciding if the 

NOX trading program allowed by RSCA 

22a–174–22 is sufficient to meet RACT 

for the 2008 ozone standard and is not 

taking any action on Connecticut’s July 

1, 2014 RACT SIP revision in this 

action. Rather, EPA will address those 

issues in a future rulemaking. 

Banked emission reduction credits 

must be correctly accounted for in 

attainment plans in order to prevent 

unplanned future emissions. On 

February 1, 2008, Connecticut 

submitted its 2002 to 2008 reasonable 

further progress (RFP) plan and 2002 

base year inventory to EPA as part of its 

attainment demonstration SIP submittal 

for the 1997 8-hr ozone standard. On 

October 14, 2009, Connecticut 

submitted a revision to the RFP plan. 

EPA approved Connecticut’s RFP plan, 

as revised, on August 22, 2012 (77 FR 

50595). In the October 14, 2009 revision, 

Connecticut explained that any DERCs 

that existed in the base year 2002 will 

have expired by the end of the RFP 

period in 2008. This is based on the fact 

that under Connecticut’s NOX emission 

trading program, DERCs expire within 

five years of creation. Since any DERCs 

existing in 2002 would not be available 

for use in 2008, banked DERCs need not 

be accounted for in a state’s RFP 


ehiers on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 115 / Wednesday, June 15, 2016 / Proposed Rules 39001 

4See EPA–452/R–01–001, January 2001 at https:// 

www3.epa.gov/ttn/caaa/t1/memoranda/eipfin.pdf. 

analysis, and Connecticut has properly 

done that. Therefore, EPA is concluding 

the TAO’s that we are proposing to 

approve into the SIP today have been 

properly accounted for in Connecticut’s 

attainment plan. 

With respect to the 2008 ozone 

standard, both Connecticut 

nonattainment areas were initially 

designated ‘‘marginal’’ nonattainment 

for this standard on May 21, 2012. (See 

77 FR 30088). However, on May 4, 2016, 

EPA re-classified or ‘‘bumped-up’’ these 

areas to moderate nonattainment. (See 

81 FR 26697). Connecticut will need to 

account for DERCs in its new RFP and 

attainment plans for this standard 

which must be submitted as 

expeditiously as practicable, but no later 

than January 1, 2017. 

II. Analysis of State Submission 

EPA issued a guidance document 

‘‘Improving Air Quality with Economic 

Incentive Programs’’ (EIP Guidance) .4

This guidance applies to discretionary 

economic incentive programs (EIPs). 

EPA’s final action on these discretionary 

economic incentive programs occurs 

when EPA acts on a state’s request to 

revise the SIP. EPA reviewed the sourcespecific TAOs with respect to the 

expectations of the EIP Guidance. EPA 

has concluded, after review and analysis 

of the source-specific TAOs, that they 

are consistent with the EIP Guidance. 

See the Technical Support Document in 

the docket for this action for EPA’s 

analysis of why the TAO’s are 

consistent with the EIP. 

When EPA designated areas for the 

2008 ozone standard, Connecticut was 

divided into two separate areas, the 

Greater Connecticut Area and the New 

York-N. New Jersey-Long Island NY-NJCT area. CT DEEP and EPA analyzed 

emission trading data for the period of 

time the TAOs were in effect to 

determine if more emission reduction 

credits were being used for compliance 

than were generated or created in any of 

Connecticut’s two nonattainment areas. 

EPA has determined the TAOs have 

resulted in RACT equivalent emission 

reductions in each of the two 

nonattainment areas. See the Technical 

Support Document in the docket for this 

action for an explicit accounting of the 

emissions from each facility in each 

nonattainment area. 

The TAOs being approved into 

Connecticut’s SIP today are limited to 

facilities which have already been 

authorized in the past by the State to 

operate under a TAO and those TAOs 

continue to authorize the sources until 

May 31, 2014 to create and/or use NOX

emission credits and allow for unused 

NOX allowances to be converted into 

NOX emission credits. The TAOs 

previously issued by Connecticut to 

these facilities were approved by EPA 

into the Connecticut SIP on September 

28, 1999 (64 FR 52233), March 23, 2001 

(66 FR 16135), and September 9, 2013 

(78 FR 54962). The reason the TAOs 

must be approved at this time for these 

same facilities is that the TAOs 

previously approved had all expired by 

May 1, 2007. 

III. Proposed Action 

EPA is proposing to approve 

Connecticut’s submitted SIP revision for 

the NOX TAOs submitted on November 

15, 2011. EPA is not taking action on 

Consent Order 8029A issued to 

Hamilton Sundstrand Corporation. EPA 

will take action on this Consent Order 

at a later date. EPA is also proposing to 

approve TAO 8110A, submitted on July 

1, 2004 and amended on May 29, 2015. 

EPA is soliciting public comments on 

the issues discussed in this document or 

on other relevant matters. These 

comments will be considered before 

taking final action. Interested parties 

may participate in the Federal 

rulemaking procedure by submitting 

written comments to the EPA New 

England Regional Office listed in the 

ADDRESSES section of this Federal 

Register. 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the Clean Air Act, the 

Administrator is required to approve a 

SIP submission that complies with the 

provisions of the Act and applicable 

Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 

40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP 

submissions, EPA’s role is to approve 

state choices, provided that they meet 

the criteria of the Clean Air Act. 

Accordingly, this proposed action 

merely approves state law as meeting 

Federal requirements and does not 

impose additional requirements beyond 

those imposed by state law. For that 

reason, this proposed action: 

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to review by the Office of 

Management and Budget under 

Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, 

January 21, 2011); 

• Does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); 

• Is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.); 

• Does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• Does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• Is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); 

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• Is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; 

and 

• Does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, the SIP is not approved 

to apply on any Indian reservation land 

or in any other area where EPA or an 

Indian tribe has demonstrated that a 

tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of 

Indian country, the rule does not have 

tribal implications and will not impose 

substantial direct costs on tribal 

governments or preempt tribal law as 

specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 

FR 67249, November 9, 2000). 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

Dated: May 31, 2016. 

H. Curtis Spalding, 

Regional Administrator, EPA New England. 

[FR Doc. 2016–14100 Filed 6–14–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 


ehiers on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS